MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975972509 · doi:10.5038/2375-0901.9.3.10

Microscopic Simulation Approach to Capacity Analysis of Bus Rapid Transit Corridors

2006· article· en· W1975972509 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Abdul Siddique, Ata M. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Transportation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBus rapid transitTransport engineeringTransit (satellite)ChokeService (business)Level of serviceComputer scienceBus networkPublic transportBusinessEngineeringControl bus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While a transitway can be built as an access-controlled, two-way rapid transit facility outside the Central Business District (CBD), in the CBD, initially, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service has to be based on exclusive bus lanes due to right-of-way, monetary, and other constraints. The strategy of providing Bus Rapid Transit on exclusive bus lanes in urban corridors is receiving policy attention. However, detailed studies on exclusive bus lane capacity for BRT operation in the CBD of a city have been scarce. In this research, using NETSIM as a microsimulator, BRT corridors in Ottawa (Canada) were investigated in terms of their capacity to handle high volumes of transit buses. For these corridors, scenarios incorporating 2021 traffic were analyzed for choke condition and the results were compared with the base case condition representing year 2001 traffic environment. Based on the results of network performance, conclusions were drawn on the capacity of BRT corridors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207